Connect with us
DAPA Banner

NewsBeat

Judge rejects request to block Trump’s ballroom project

Published

on

Judge rejects request to block Trump's ballroom project

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday rejected a preservationist group’s request to block the Trump administration from continuing construction of a $400 million ballroom where it demolished the East Wing of the White House.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its bid to temporarily halt President Donald Trump’s project. He said the privately funded group based its challenge on a “ragtag group of theories” under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, and would have a better chance of success if it amended the lawsuit.

“Unfortunately, because both sides initially focused on the President’s constitutional authority to destruct and construct the East Wing of the White House, Plaintiff didn’t bring the necessary cause of action to test the statutory authority the President claims is the basis to do this construction project without the blessing of Congress and with private funds,” the judge wrote.

The preservationists sought an order pausing the ballroom project until it undergoes multiple independent reviews and wins approval from Congress.

Advertisement

Trump used his social media account to hail the ruling as “Great news for America.” The Republican president said the project was ahead of schedule and under budget and “will stand long into the future as a symbol to the Greatness of America.”

The preservationists did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House announced the ballroom project over the summer. By late October, the Republican president had demolished the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that he said will fit 999 people. The White House said private donations, including from Trump himself, would pay for the planned construction of a 90,000-square-foot (8,400-square-meter) ballroom.

Trump proceeded with the project before seeking input from a pair of federal review panels, the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. Trump has stocked both commission with allies.

Advertisement

The arts panel approved the project at a meeting last week. The planning commission is set to discuss it further at a March 5 meeting.

During a preliminary hearing in December, Leon warned the administration to refrain from making decisions on underground work, such as the routing of plumbing and gas lines, that would dictate the scope of future ballroom construction above ground.

The group challenging the project argued that Trump could be emboldened to go further — and possibly demolish the White House’s West Wing or Executive Mansion — if the court did not intervene.

“The losers will be (the) American public, who will be left with a massive ballroom that not only overwhelms what is perhaps the nation’s most historically important building, but will have been built in violation of an astonishingly wide range of laws,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote.

Advertisement

The administration said in a court filing that above-ground construction on the ballroom would not begin until April. In the meantime, government lawyers argued, the preservationist group’s challenge was premature because the building plans were not final.

The administration also argued that other presidents did not need congressional approval for previous White House renovation projects, large and small.

“Many of those projects were highly controversial in their time yet have since become accepted—even beloved—parts of the White House,” government lawyers wrote.

Leon, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, said the White House office behind the project is not an agency covered under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge also said the preservationists, who argued that the ballroom usurped the authority of Congress, did not have the basis to invoke the power of the courts.

Advertisement

As a result, “I cannot reach the merits of the National Trust’s novel and weighty statutory arguments” at this time, Leon said.

___

Associated Press writer Will Weissert contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

NewsBeat

Stormont must face the cost of its climate ambitions

Published

on

Belfast Live

“If the Executive continues to prioritise rigid carbon accounting over road safety, economic connectivity, and the financial stability of households, they won’t just miss their climate targets, they’ll miss the point of government entirely.”

Advertisement

There is a fine line between visionary leadership and blind dogma. If you want to see what happens when a government tumbles headfirst over that line, look no further than the current state of Northern Ireland’s infrastructure.

On Tuesday, the DUP will bring a motion to the Assembly floor that sets out how our region’s legally binding climate targets have become an impenetrable barrier to basic regional prosperity.

For years, we were told the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 was a “landmark” victory for the environment. But in 2026, the reality on the ground, or more accurately, the potholes in the ground, tells a different story. What was billed as a green revolution has instead become, as Doug Beattie has aptly described, a “contagion of caution” that has paralysed our road network and created a zero-sum war for every penny in the public purse.

The most glaring casualty is the A5 Western Transport Corridor. A £1.7 billion project designed to save lives and connect the west has been quashed by the High Court because the Department for Infrastructure couldn’t reconcile a massive road scheme with a yet-to-be-finalised Climate Action Plan.

Advertisement

This isn’t just about one road. The A5 ruling has set a far-reaching precedent. Any project that generates emissions is now a sitting duck for judicial review. We’ve seen the £36 million A4 Enniskillen Southern Bypass, a vital project for Fermanagh, stalled indefinitely because the Minister is “mindful” of the legal risks. This hesitation cost the taxpayer £6.6 million in surrendered funding this year alone. While the lawyers argue, the costs of civil engineering continue to skyrocket, leaving the ratepayer to pick up an even bigger bill whenever, if ever, the diggers return.

Perhaps the most perverse outcome of the 2022 Act is the 10 per cent mandatory spend on “active travel”. On paper, spending £85 million a year on walking and cycling sounds lovely. In reality, it has forced the DfI into what can only be described as creative accounting, raising concerns from the Audit Office.

The Department has been caught reclassifying £37 million of general repairs as “active travel” just to hit a statutory quota. Meanwhile, the actual structural maintenance budget is a heavily depressed £68 million, which is well short of what is needed to keep the lights on and the tarmac smooth. We are being forced into a binary choice between asking if we want aspirational cycle lanes or roads that don’t destroy our suspension.

Then there is the draft Climate Action Plan 2023-2027. It is a document built on “speculative accounting” and “unquantified” proposals. It asks our farmers to adopt targets that are, frankly, unworkable, based on what critics have described as failed models from the Republic of Ireland.

Advertisement

For those in social housing, the “Just Transition” plan pushes for heat pumps that, without a complete retrofit, are more expensive to run than gas or oil. Because there is no grant support for these retrofits, housing associations are forced to take out commercial loans, the interest on which could be paid for by the region’s most vulnerable tenants through higher rents.

The DUP motion calls for a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and frankly, we cannot continue to govern by aspiration while ignoring the macroeconomic reality of a cost-of-living crisis.

Northern Ireland needs to decarbonise, but it shouldn’t have to go bankrupt to do it. If the Executive continues to prioritise rigid carbon accounting over road safety, economic connectivity, and the financial stability of households, they won’t just miss their climate targets, they’ll miss the point of government entirely.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here.

Source link

Continue Reading

NewsBeat

Grand National 2026: Who is the favourite to win at Aintree and what price are they?

Published

on

Wales Online
Grand National 2026: Who is the favourite to win at Aintree and what price are they? | Wales Online